Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Texas. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Texas|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Texas. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Texas[edit]

Cavalcade station[edit]

Cavalcade station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any reliable sources for this article, even newspapers as well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. I don't see how this article can be on this website. To me, this needs to be discussed. GoodHue291 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found general mention of this station on travel websites but nothing that would qualify as a source for this article. It seems to violate WP:NRV. Garsh (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The other stations on this line seem to have similar sourcing/depth of content. Is there any particular reason you focused on this station specifically for this AfD? Jumpytoo Talk 21:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont Leadership Challenge[edit]

Philmont Leadership Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE WP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Products, and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify Content is useful but should be updated. --evrik (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it could be merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, but the material does need to be cut back and generally improved. Bduke (talk)
    • I think it was "forked" out of that article in the first place. --evrik (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is purely organizational material, lacking any secondary sourcing--nor should we expect any. I wouldn't call this article an ad, but the effect of this plethora of organizational articles, in-universe articles as it were without any secondary sourcing, is a walled garden for such articles to lean on each other, and that certainly has promotional effects. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSOY-LD[edit]

KSOY-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best Southwest[edit]

Best Southwest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable advertising puffery term coined for public relations purposes; not used by reliable sources but in press releases and tourism websites Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brown (businessperson)[edit]

Matthew Brown (businessperson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, WP:UPE, WP:RUMOR - of all the things to be notable for, I think the oddest thing about this fellow is that his main claim to notability is *not* investing in Virgin Orbit. The only coverage is rumor mill stuff churned out around the time of Virgin Orbit's fall, and the deal never closed - they liquidated around 2 months after these stories were put out. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably a COI creation, I checked a number of references and very little that is said in the article is true/verifiable. He specifically did NOT fund Virgin Orbit, and did NOT consult with UC Berkeley. He actually seems to be a bit (or more than a bit) of a con man, making absurd claims. From the Quartz article: "Halsey said Brown told him he started his career as a teenage tech entrepreneur working with Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss brothers before selling a company to Salesforce. Then, while a 19-year-old enrolled at TCU, Brown won an executive position and, shortly thereafter, the top job at a Texas family office managing $6 billion in assets. He advised the Obama White House and the famed investor T. Boone Pickens on renewable energy." None of this can be verified. Lamona (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bekemeier[edit]

Michael Bekemeier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. I can't find any WP:RS. Claggy (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to editing wikipedia. He is an actor/stuntman in SAG-AFTRA who has a world record and a couple of online fandoms. I am not sure what wp:rs, wp:nactor, wp:bio? If you can help me understand and fix this page rather than deleting it, I would greatly appreciate it.
I see what those things are now and he HAS had notable roles. He was the boogeyman in The Boogeyman and the main entity in the film Imaginary, among other films. Please look at his IMDB for background if you insist he has not been in enough. And his world record is clearly linked on this page. Or is that also not enough? He is well known for his contributions to the Atlanta stunt and contortion community. As far as reliable sources... is the Guinness site and IMDB not enough? Of course there are no peer-reviewed articles as he is a stuntman... I am happy to try to add more sources, but those are fairly reputable for this line of work.
I motion to move this to the improvements page instead of deletion. I am open to any suggestions for improvement.
Cheers,
cashworth6
@cashworth6: "WP" stands for Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia requires that its subjects be notable to prevent people from adding information that isn't verifiable and is in many cases incorrect.
There are several policies that determine whether a subject is notable. You should start by reading WP: N (general notability guidelines), then reading WP: NACTOR (specific guidelines for establishing notability for actors), WP: BIO (guidelines for notability about people), and WP: RS (guidelines for what is and isn't a reliable source). These are guidelines that users use to argue whether an article should be kept or deleted. You should also read WP: AFD to get an overview of how the deletion process works.
IMDB contains user generated content under WP: IMDB, so it isn't reliable. Anyone can add anything, including incorrect information, to IMDB. The Guinness source mentions him as a record holder and names his occupation. This doesn't meet the standard for in-depth coverage. If you can find reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth (e.g. a passage about him in the New York Times, a section in a book about stuntmen that discusses his work), then this would improve the article to where it should not be deleted. You're free to ask any questions here or on my talk page if you wish, but please read these policies in their entirety before doing so. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(for the avoidance of doubt, this is a description of the nomination and not a vote) HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help and I apologize for my confusion. Cashworth6 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete little to no sourcing in anything found; what's used now isn't enough and I can't find any listings of this person. To the comments above, the Imdb isn't a reliable source, Guinness records aren't useful and being in the union isn't notable. We'd require articles written about this person, somewhere, in order to be notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBPX-LD[edit]

KBPX-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; most sources are from the FCC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [1], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [2]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
  • Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alcalde[edit]

The Alcalde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Better to merge either with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Exes Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Texas&oldid=1227947953"